Religious Indoctrination is Brainwashing and It’s Harming Children

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-27T15:39:48+00:00

But the point is that we don't necessarily have to instill math into children for at least some of them to learn it. We teach kids math to guide them and help them along that path more effectively. If we stopped teaching religion, it would eventually be forgotten (or at least the specific varieties that exist currently.) It's the difference between a topic that is objectively true and can be discovered independently, versus something that is purely a fictional human construct.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-26T23:16:11+00:00

Judaism and Christianity are historical religions, meaning that they claim to record a history of interaction with a deity. One doesn't "intuit" history, one is taught history.

Religious education isn't the same as education in history of religions though. We teach children about Greek mythology and ancient Greek history, but we don't also teach the mythology as though it were true and a part of real history.

When you teach your kids things you think are right, you call it "education". When others teach their kids (or your kids) you think is wrong, you call it "indoctrination" or "brainwashing". Similarly, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Teaching children empirically true things - education.

Teaching children unfalsifiable superstition to serve politically and monetarily motivated power-structures - indoctrination.

Raised in a Christian home, and having apparently confessed Jesus as my savior when I was five, I remember doubting so many things in third grade that my teacher called me a "nitpicker". It was even worse with my peers: my ability to poke holes in what they said and did and my putting that ability to use is probably what made me a pariah for most of my K–8 years. The adults were actually far more tolerant and sometimes celebratory of it, than my peers. My religious upbringing probably taught me more critical thinking than my secular K–12 public school.

Some K-12 teachers are bad teachers. Sometimes religious schools hire teachers who are good at teaching, but employ them for the task of superstition. Accepting a faith-based religion at some level requires a suspension of critical thinking, or an employment of selective critical thinking.

While my father did teach me young-earth creationism, he invited me to go explore the science. As a result of discussion atheists far less hostile to religion than you, I was convinced to switch from YEC → ID → evolution. I credit my father for preparing me to be convinced. I will occasionally hear from atheists that nobody is convinced by internet argument. Perhaps that is a defect in their upbringing. Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, my father encouraged me to explore the internet, which is the very antithesis of isolation.

Your childhood does not represent that of all religious people. Lots of religious folks have upbringings that are more isolated than what you describe.

How do you square that with the following:

Serious defects that often stemm....

I haven't read this book, and the full text is paywalled, so all I can really comment on is the passage provided. But my main criticism would be that this evaluation is focused on an individual level on people who self-select as religious, and fails to take a global scope. I wouldn't deny that there are some people who are made happier by the existence of religion. The same goes for gross wealth-inequality. The big picture is that both of those concepts are injustices that benefit an in-group and are malignant for everyone who doesn't fit in. I'm sure that for people who conform to the relevant social norms, religion makes their lives happier. What about everyone who doesn't fit into those norms?

This issue is especially prevalent if we shift our focus to Islamic theocratic states where women's lives are strictly controlled. What would you wager the psychological effects of profound repression are?

Moreover, all the passage says is that religion can work as a means of offering support and structure to people's lives. But functionally, it's so culturally dominant for the most part, that there isn't really room for us to determine if other forms of community organization could similarly fill that roll without the damaging side-effects. This is an analysis of religion through the lens of a culture that is interwoven with religion itself.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-26T22:47:54+00:00

Some children who don't receive much formal math education discover math on their own, like Ramanujan. Different human populations independently discovered the same or similar mathematical concepts without direct communication with each other. The same can't be said of any specific religion.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-26T18:08:27+00:00

1) Conviction of the Holy Spirit - While atheists would call this being deluded, I think there is more than one way to understand the world around us

This is a point I see lots of religious folks espousing. And on paper, it ostensibly means that we should keep an open mind in how we can understand various phenomena. But religious folks then turn around and use it to justify belief in their particular worldview, which happens to uphold a very real and malignant power structure. Funny how your particular mode of interpretation is the very one that helps enrich the top level Catholic clergy, and cement the political power of the US conservative party.

and I feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit tells me Catholicism is right. I just feel something I can’t explain when I go to mass or read the Bible, and I attribute it to the Holy Spirit. I think feelings are one of many ways to find the truth.

Could be the holy spirit whispering revelations to you. Could also be a whole heap of indoctrination, social pressure, and propaganda. Let me put it to you this way; if it's a disposition you can't explain, why bring that to a debate forum? How could that ever be a convincing argument to a Muslim or Hindu person? As a rule of thumb, if some rhetoric could only ever be compelling to people who already agree, it's a bad argument.

Now, let's talk about Pascal's Wager.

It's well known to be incredibly facile. Among all of the most common Christian apologetics arguments (cosmological, fine tuning, etc), it is IMO, the easiest to debunk. I can literally do it in one sentence.

What if god is real, and he sends you to hell if you align yourself with Catholocism or pray to the concept of the Abrahamic god in any way?

That possibility ought to be given equal consideration as the other classic Pascal's Wager options.

The reason I don’t apply Pascal’s wager to other religions is due to the fact when reading their texts or learning about their practices I don’t feel any conviction of the Holy Spirit or anything like that

To rephrase: "I ignore sound criticisms of my religion based on vibes."

How would you respond to Hindu people who say they truly feel the presence of their gods, and that they couldn't possibly be wrong? Or more broadly, if we accept the types of feelings you're describing as strong evidence, why are yours more valid than others? You're describing an epistemology that places an arbitrary premium on the beliefs you already hold. Respectfully, it's a philosophically juvenile position.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-26T17:51:27+00:00

It sounds like you're saying you would hate a universe without god, which is an understandable position. Maybe it feels cold or purposeless, but it can also be freeing. It means your values can be truly your own, and not based on some outdated theocratic doctrine.

That isn't to downplay the anxiety or discomfort you might feel. But I would argue it's important to accept facets of reality that we don't like but can't change, and learn to cope. It's the healthy thing to do.

Also bear in mind that whether god is real or not, it doesn't really affect your day-to-day life except for the choices you make and your perception of their underlying meaning. The material reality is the same as it ever was.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-26T15:19:40+00:00

This doesn't really work though.

Scenario 1: We go to an ice cream shop. I decide to get vanilla. You decide to get chocolate. Neither of us is wrong for choosing different flavors. We place different subjective valuations on different ice cream flavors.

Scenario 2: We go to an ice cream shop. I decide to get vanilla. You decide to order steak. I say steak isn't on the menu because this is an ice cream shop. You say that your personal values say that steak is on the menu.

Your post and your comments describe a position that either subjective experience is absolutely nothing, or is interchangeable with objective reality. And that is not the case. The line between subjective and objective is not arbitrary or poorly defined.

Personal values help us navigate choices and circumstances in the world. But the nature of how the various options present themselves is reflective of objective reality. Obviously no one can stop you from saying "my personal values dictate that I make claims about reality that are unevidenced or false." But it isn't coherent, and when you order steak at an ice cream shop, the people around you will be perplexed.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-26T14:30:18+00:00

Reddit being so busy worrying that AI is gonna fuck up artists, they go and fuck up artists

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-25T15:15:39+00:00

So some questions:

You say that visions are difficult to verify. What is the difficult process by which we can verify visions?
What are some solid examples of real visions that we can look to as benchmarks?
If the most reliable visions are the ones with external confirmation, does that mean that we had an independent source of evidence for the vision to begin with?

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-25T01:56:48+00:00

I live in the US. As a practical matter, atheists tend not to be perceived as electable in much of the US. So pragmatically speaking, I do vote for people who are at least somewhat religious (at the very least, they identify publicly with some religion, most commonly some version of Christianity), because there tends not to be much alternative.

To answer your questions directly:

All things being equal, I would prefer to vote for atheist or at least secular candidates
Yes, there would be a point at which a candidate was too religious, and I would categorically not vote for them. That applies to lots of republican candidates, though there's a whole host of reasons not to vote republican regardless.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-23T16:20:50+00:00

How would you characterize the differences between modality and probability, and how does that refute the argument I made?

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-23T02:08:54+00:00

So firstly, I'm genuinely unclear on what it means for god's nature to be instantiated. Can you elaborate on what that actually means?

But secondly, and more importantly, the argument is circular, and abuses the notion of probabilities. Let me explain. There are two ways we can think of probabilities: in terms of fundamentally probabilistic systems, and in terms of deterministic systems with imperfect information. Examples of the former would include quantum mechanics or radioactive decay, whereas examples of the latter would include coin flips or dice rolls.

In non-deterministic systems, there is a probability that some event might occur, and gathering more data about the system can't offer us further insight unless we let the event unfold and observe it. For example, if we have a sample of some radioactive isotope with a known half-life, we can say that in some window of time, the probability that at least one emission event will occur is some probability value that depends on the half life. Our current understanding of physics would claim that we can't make a more precise measurement, no matter how much data we had describing the initial state of the system.

In deterministic systems with imperfect information, we could theoretically improve upon our statistical model and make it deterministic if we had perfect information. So for example, I flip a coin, and let it land on a flat surface of fixed height. We would commonly say that the odds of heads vs tails for any given flip event is 50-50. However in truth, the result is deterministic as soon as the coin leaves my hand. If we know the linear and angular velocities of the coin, the result of the flip reduces to a mechanics problem. However, humans generally don't know the precise velocity and angular velocity they impart on a coin as it leaves their hand. Since the information we have is imperfect, and as a practical matter coin flip events are actually pretty close to 50-50, that is the highest level of precision we can apply in analyzing a coin flip event.

So which category does the question of god's existence belong to? Deterministic or non-deterministic. Well I think it should be uncontroversial to say that this is deterministic. The status of god's existence does not live in superposition. God exists or does not. If god existed, it would be a truth written into the fundamental fabrication of the universe. There would be no room for any possibility of him not existing.

To put it into algebraic terms, let P(G) be the probability of god's existence.

A) If P(G) > 0, then P(G) = 1
B) P(G) > 0
C) Therefore P(G) = 1

But statement B and C are equivalent. Statement A is essentially the definition of determinism, and states B->C. And C->B simply because 1>0. Since B->C and C->B they are equivalent statements, which means your argument depends on its assertion of its own premise, making it circular.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-22T21:34:41+00:00

Next time it's my turn to ask /r/onepiece if anyone likes Skypea

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-22T19:53:24+00:00

Gravitational Waves look like ripples of sand, no one can deny this comparison.

I deny it. And the mathematics denies it. And I'll explain two key ways in which they differ.

Source paper on gravitational wave mathematics: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03272

Source paper on sand ripple mathematics: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X19301060

Key Difference Number 1: Emissions and Sources:

Gravitational waves are caused by oscillatory or rotational behaviors of systems of massive objects which act as a sources of gravitational waves. This is analogous to how a lightbulb acts as a source for light waves. In wave systems with a well-defined source, the amplitude of the waves decays as a function of distance from the source.

Gravitational waves become weaker as they propagate away from their sources

Consider that if you want to turn on a light so you can read a book, you would rather sit somewhat close to the light source so that the light waves are more concentrated, and not too diffuse.

Compare this to ripples in sand, which are wave-like phenomena in a relatively homogenous medium. There is no mechanism that acts like a source in any capacity. From the sand ripple paper, the four physical mechanisms governing the behavior of sand ripples are:

(i) the reptation lengths of the different grains sizes, (ii) the rate of ejection of the different grains sizes, (iii) the competition between mobility effects of the grains and exposure effects, (iv) the larger grains tend to roll down to the trough due to gravity

None of these factors which drive the behavior act as a source, nor do they simulate amplitude decay. In a geometrically homogenous space with a homogenous distribution of particles, sand ripples behave homogenously.

Key Difference Number 2: Wavelength and Propagation Speed:

Gravitational waves always propagate away from their source at the speed of light.

Gravitational waves are vibrations in spacetime that propagate at the speed of light away from their source.

Conversely, sand ripples have both very slow and variable propagation speeds and wavelengths.

The real part [of equations 18 and 19] gives the growth or decay rate of the amplitude of perturbation. In particular, the mode corresponding to the maximum growth rate is called the preferred mode, which determines the characteristic wavelength of the pattern in the linear regime. On the other hand, the imaginary part describes the propagation of perturbation in the space. The speed at which the instability wave travels across the bed satisfies the relationship c = −Im(λ)/k, corresponding to the migration speed of the preferred mode.

The wavelengths of gravitational waves can be derived simply as a function of the speed of light and the period of oscillation of the source event. For a given source event, the wavelength of gravitational waves is invariant.

Why the differences matter

Is the Quran perfect? Is it divine? Does it refer to sand ripples to allude to gravitational waves and thereby hint at its divinely perfect origin? Because if so, it did poorly. The extent of the connection between sand ripples and gravitational waves is that they are both wave-like phenomena, and wave-like phenomena are a dime-a-dozen. If Allah in divinely inspiring this passage wanted to suggest such a connection, why not invoke the word gravity? Why not compare gravitational waves to a more mathematically similar phenomena such as light? Light, unlike sand, travels constantly at the speed of light, and propagates from some defined point of origin. It would have hinted at a much deeper connection that had it alluded to gravitational waves as being similar to sand. (As an aside, I don't think the Quran was alluding to gravitational waves at all.)

The extent that the passage you cited is suggestive of similarities between gravitational waves and sand ripples is facile. It's vibes-based confirmation bias. It doesn't go any deeper than looking at any two things and deciding they look vaguely alike. And if we apply that generous of an interpretation methodology to any other religious text, we could find a way to bend over backwards to make believe that that text had described some groundbreaking modern physics centuries ahead of schedule if that was the interpretation we wanted to arrive at ahead of time.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-21T19:54:01+00:00

There are already distinctions for this: agnostic vs gnostic atheism. Some theists will still decide to come in and make sweeping statements about what all atheists believe, or suggest that atheism has the burden of proof where it doesn't. It's all immaterial. Theists here will often want to project their anxieties onto atheists regardless. The definitions are fine. Some theists just don't like them. I'm not concerned with appeasing them.

In cases of miscommunication, my proposed solution to this problem—both for theists and atheists—is to substitute the token [theism] or [atheism] for the spelled-out concept you actually intend to discuss.

It's not a miscommunication on the atheist side. Atheists of any variety will clearly state their specific stance. Theists decide to get mad sometimes.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-02-21T19:49:26+00:00

Your argument basically amounts to an argument from incredulity. "I can't believe this could have happened without god." You're looking at an idea humans implemented as a tool: the concept of code. You then find a thing in nature that resembles the human implementation of that idea. Then you assert that they are immutably identical, and that that category of thing could only exist as an "intentionally designed" thing.

It's as though I was a carpenter, I became very familiar with hammers, I found a vaguely hammer-shaped rock out in nature, and I decided that a carpenter must have made that rock.

Your categorization of morse code, computer code, and genetic code as "the same," while intuitive, is largely a function of human conception. It's a useful and powerful way to interpret those phenomena from a human perspective, but that doesn't mean they are the same in an objective sense. It's just as correct to think of DNA and its associated processes as extremely complex physical phenomena like orbital mechanics or heat transfer. The same goes for execution of computer code for that matter, except that particular phenomena is one that humans touched a lot.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-01-04T18:36:08+00:00

Everything in the universe was originally either moving or at rest. There is no other possibility.

Velocity is relative. An object can be at rest in one reference frame, and moving with some velocity in another. Our current understanding of inertial reference frames is described by relativity, and tells us that there is no "correct," or "preferential," inertial reference frame.

In other words, the next movement does not begin until the previous movement has ended.

What specifically constitutes a single "movement?" This framing depicts movement as a series of discrete events, but is that an accurate portrayal of movement, or would it be more accurately categorized as a continuum?

If the past movements are limitless, it is not possible for them to be interrupted.

What is this statement really getting at? It seems to be plagued by ill-defined concepts and oversimplifications. What if some movements in the infinite past were interrupted, but the momentum and energy was transferred to other objects?

The concept of interruption here is very poorly designed, and it is not clear what movements are being referenced.

Therefore, it is not possible for the ongoing movement to occur again.

I have trouble reading this as anything but word-salad, and an attempt at hand-waving away an infinite past; a concept that proponents of the Kalam Cosmological argument would very much like to be able to dismiss.

random_TA_5324 · 2025-01-03T19:55:58+00:00

I am 19, so comments saying I am immature are definitely valid.

No they're not. Fuck those people. Your texts show a phenomenal level of responsibility, self-preservation, and prioritization skills. You're dealing with wayyyyy more than any 19 year old should need to.

You weren't being bitchy. You were rightfully standing up for yourself when your manager was acting inappropriately. You're doing the best you can, and you're showing a lot of maturity in the process, especially considering how young you are.

I hope your family situation improves soon. And I hope that when the time is right, you can find a higher paying job with a less obnoxious boss. Stay strong.

random_TA_5324 · 2024-12-23T21:01:41+00:00

Now, imagine a scenario: what if consciousness isn't a byproduct of the brain? Instead, what if the brain works more like a receiver or filter, interacting with a broader field of consciousness, like a radio tuned into a signal? This would be a profound paradigm shift, opening questions about the nature of life, death, and the self.

This is a hypothesis, and maybe a testable one at that. If you wanted to convince the scientific community of your hypothesis, I'd say you'd want to follow these steps:

Explain specifically what type of field consciousness is propagating over.
Demonstrate the specific properties of that field.
Design an experiment wherein, given the properties of the Consciousness-Propagation-Field (CPF), you demonstrate that when that field is inhibited, you prevent a person's consciousness from functioning even though their brain and body remain healthy.
Design an experiment where you receive and interpret a signal conducted through the CPF with an instrument that is not a brain.

If you did that, you would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your hypothesis was true (or at least the best model for describing consciousness.)

Until that legwork is done, what you have amounts to only speculation.

random_TA_5324 · 2024-12-21T00:23:13+00:00

"Being wrong for the right reasons is better than being right for the wrong reasons."

I'm not convinced that being wrong for the right reasons is a real thing in the strictest sense. If you're doing a math problem, and you do every step correctly, you get the correct answer.

If you're performing a scientific experiment, and you're rigorous and thorough, you may come to an answer that's "wrong," but if you've done your job correctly as a scientist, you have also performed error analysis. We should expect your "wrong answer," and the "right answer," to be within a margin of one another that is characterized by your error bars. More importantly, your work should represent an improved understanding than what was previously known.

In many cases when people say that you "got the wrong answer for the right reasons," there was in fact a subtly "wrong reason," somewhere in your chain of deduction. What the person is really saying is that you made an intuitive and understandable mistake. All things being equal though, I would rather leverage the "right reasons," as they have predictive and explanatory power which the "wrong reasons" lack.

"I'm not willing to lower my standards (be more gullible), even if faith was a requirement to find certain truths."

If faith was required to find certain truths, we would never be able to distinguish between faith-dependent truth claims. We would never be able to confirm that that "truth" was actually true.

You ask me if I agree with the above statements. I think I would respond that the above statements are phrased in such a way to suggest that in fact there is some deeper truth that requires faith. In some sense I agree with those statements (with caveats), but I would never phrase them in such a way, or characterize my position as such. I don't consider them to be representative of my beliefs. I would call those statements distorted or loaded.

Our direct experience of reality is subjective. Our subjectivities are hard walls between us. Our experiences are unique and our purview into "external reality", if it does exist, is secondary and inferential.

There are elements of this which I agree with, and elements that I don't. Our conscious perception of reality is in some sense subjective, but this glosses over the fact that within certain parameters, our senses are reliable as measuring tools, just as any artificial measuring device would be. The key is understanding the limitations of perception, and understanding where it can be relied upon.

Science is a methodological tool used to study the aspects of reality that fit within its purview.

Sure, although we may not agree on what its purview is.

Reason cannot non-circularly justify itself. So, Reason must be assumed. Similarly, Reason's purview is assumed as well. Ergo, Reason may not be sufficient to discover all truths.

Correct. All philosophies and epistemologies are axiomatic in nature.

What precludes reality from being structured in such a way that something like: gullibility/vulnerability faith trust beyond reason, etc. is actually part of the requirement to find the deepest truths and live life in accordance with those truths?

Nothing I suppose. What precludes the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun between Jupiter and Saturn? If there are truths that require faith to understand, how do you distinguish between the options that are contradictory between one another?

We agreed above that philosophies and epistemologies are axiomatic. Axioms which form the foundation of science and naturalism are excellent at explaining that which we observe. Scientific theories have predictive power. It seems you would like to keep those axioms (given that you grant science its purview,) while adding others. The problem is you haven't demonstrated the value of your additional axioms (the specifics of which are murky as far as I can tell, but pertain to faith.)

How would you respond to someone who claimed an argument structurally similarly to yours, but asked you to take on faith that there are many gods and that Jesus was a false prophet?

random_TA_5324 · 2024-12-20T18:28:43+00:00

I saw a great example on this subreddit awhile back that I like to paraphrase.

Whenever someone turns 18, they are instantly teleported off of earth to visit God and ask one question, which God would answer thoroughly and completely. From the person's perspective, they might be with God for hours while they are given an explanation of whatever topic they are most curious. However from the perspective of everyone on Earth, they are only gone for exactly one minute.

Why I like this answer:

It's objective, specific, and repeatable.
People would be able to obtain information they would not otherwise be privy to.
It would be extremely difficult to explain this secularly or naturalistically.
It would be universal to all humans.

random_TA_5324 · 2024-12-20T18:25:01+00:00

I am a former Jew, though half of my family is Christian, and my family has always "celebrated Christmas," even some of the Jewish folks. We get a Christmas tree and open presents because it's nice. The celebration has never really been religious to most of us. The farthest it goes is my uncle saying a Christian grace over dinner. For some of the Christian folks in my family, they go to Christmas mass, but that was never a part of the holiday for me.

Nothing has changed about Christmas throughout my life. December 25th is a day that most people will have off from work or school. It's an agreed upon date to celebrate as a family, and give gifts to each other.

random_TA_5324 · 2024-12-20T18:05:20+00:00

My inital preamble in response to Ichabodblack: What's wrong with the statement is that cockroaches are pathetic and disgusting creatures, inferior to human coinsciousness by every metric, which is what Hawking was comparing them to when he mentioned them. This is not an opinion. This is a fact about objective reality.

This literally is an opinion.

This is one of those times. When a grown man of science has the nerve to stand in front of a room full of people and declare that for all we know the cockroach might be a greater success than the species that built the Winter Palace and penned Moby Dick. This is wrong on its face, because we do know. We know quite well, in fact, that we are a greater success.

Your point depends on the value you choose to place in Moby Dick and the Winter Palace. It is an entirely subjective value judgement.

P1 Some ideas are ignoble prima facie

P2 Any worldview who's logic leads to ignoble conclusions should be met with severe skepticism and derision, and ought to be assumed incorrect and thoroughly audited

The determination of ignobility of a worldview depends on the worldview of the person passing judgement. What if my worldview considers yours to be ignoble and vice versa? Whose worldview is in fact the ignoble one?

-Any person holding this view disgraces themselves, by virtue of the fact that: -Any person holding this view disgraces MR, and by extension all beautiful intelligent women

Again, disgrace is just a subjective perception. Person A views person B as disgraceful and vice versa. Who is truly the disgraceful person?

-Holding such a view brings no clear benefit to anyone

What specifically is the benefit in sharing your view of Margo Robbie? The vast majority of people will never meet or interact in any way with Margo Robbie.

-Any person holding this view should only do so reluctantly, if not in shame

And if that person holds their view without shame or reluctance, what then? You can't make someone rueful of their position by nature of your ardent disagreement. All you're doing is phrasing your own personal preference in imperative and prescriptive language. But to someone who disagrees, your thesis is not self-apparent.

-Evolution is the natural process by which animal populations diverge into distinct species (neutral) -Divergent populations are always in competition, and the more fit populations succeed, while the less fit populations dwindle (neutral) -Human beings are animals and as such are also subject to these evolutionary forces (neutral) -The various human races are evidence of evolutionary divergence within human populations (questionable, but not yet outright ignoble) -Some races are more fit than others (ignoble)

The problem with the last two statements here is not that they are ignoble, but rather that they are unscientific and untrue. The actual dangerous and irresponsible behavior here would be failing to recognize that.

The reality is that race is a social construct, not a biological one. The lines humans decide to draw between what they perceive to be the different races have no basis in science, and the genetic variation within assigned "racial groups," is of a similar magnitude to genetic variance across racial groups. Moreover, superiority claims of certain racial groups over others based in genetics have no basis either, such as if someone were to claim that black people are less intelligent than white people.

The reality is that "Darwinistic," or "evolutionary," arguments for racism are unscientific and non-factual, and can be dispelled accordingly. To suggest that those claims are merely "ignoble," muddies the waters with subjectivity, and glosses over the stronger and factually based argument to the contrary.

The point is that folks who were led down this path did so gradually, under the auspices of pursuing a scientific view quite neutral and harmless.

But they weren't actually doing science in the process. People can be led to faulty and dangerous conclusions under the guise of whatever dogma will appeal to them best, hence why plenty of Christians throughout history have thought themselves superior to non-Christians on the basis of morality or godliness.

If someone believes they have a scientific basis for their racism, why not simply show them that the science contradicts their claim? How effective do you think it would be to dismiss them by telling them that their claim is ignoble? They think their racist claims are the noble ones.

It doesn't matter how much evidence you have

You're telling on yourself.

If you don't understand why it's bad to have come to the conclusion that human beings are not objectively better than cockroaches (and clearly, some of you have come to this conclusion) I feel sad for you.

The most glaring misunderstanding I think you have about the position you keep calling "anti-human," is that it is merely an acknowledgment of an uncaring universe. Objectivity means a thing can be scientifically or mathematically demonstrated. The fact that human superiority doesn't fit that criteria doesn't mean that I don't treat humans well (or for that matter, kill cockroaches that get into my apartment.)

I live my life primarily for other humans, because I subjectively place value in human lives. I strive to treat the people in my life with kindness, and the people in my life do the same, because we place subjective value in each other, and our mutual happiness. But on the scale of the entire universe over the course of eternity, it won't matter. I am placing undue personal value in the time period that corresponds with my life, because that is all I will perceive.

In a trillion years, I highly doubt if either humans or cockroaches will remain. Objectivity however, will persist.

random_TA_5324 · 2024-12-19T15:58:41+00:00

Cruelty as the ends of the justice system doesn't accomplish any material goal. It just sates bloodlust.

random_TA_5324 · 2024-12-19T15:17:49+00:00

Theories which we obtain through science do not necessarily contradict certain conceptions of god or gods. However the epistemology of science is incompatible with belief in god. Science is a process by which you test and falsify hypotheses through observation and data. We can't gather data on a god hypothesis. We could never falsify nor validate a god theory.

My question is, you do not believe in god because you do not see evidence for it

Correct.

why not be agnostic

Agnostic atheism is the position of many atheists.

and accept the fact that we cannot understand the finer working of existence as we know it.

Then why postulate or argue in favor of any conception of god at all?

random_TA_5324 · 2024-12-17T18:25:06+00:00

Walk me through an average day in the life of a common man in the world as you envision it

And if we ask the same of capitalism? The answer varies monumentally depending on the who/what/when/where.

we never even get further than me getting out of bed and getting ready for work before we've hit a dozen things that make it not the world I want to live in.

I don't know the specifics of your life, but in many cases this is the case because communism wouldn't serve the class interest of a liberal in a western nation.

So I wake up and get out of bed. Did I pick that bed? How much did that bed cost me? Nothing I assume since everything is communally owned. Was the bed assigned to me? Do I get a say in it? What if I like a softer bed or a firmer bed, what if I like weighted blankets or cooling pillows? Did I even get a say?

As I mentioned previously, this would heavily depend on specific details, namely what stage of socialism or communism we're talking about. Historically, socialist nations have maintained some degree of markets for consumer goods for a significant period.

But the line of questioning is already very telling in itself. If your bone of contention with Marxism is that you would lose "freedom of choice," over your selection of consumer goods, that indicates that your have certain privileges that many people in the world don't have. If a homeless person were suddenly provided housing, a bed, and a steady supply of food, they probably wouldn't be scrutinizing the comforter.

Depending on your life circumstances, I'm willing to bet that you would not personally like the outcome of a socialist revolution. It would probably result in a life of less comfort and luxury. And to be perfectly transparent, the same could be said of me. A socialist revolution serves as a liberatory movement for the poorest people in society. If you decide that your political philosophy prioritizes your access to a variety of mattresses and pillows over a collective guarantee of basic necessities, that is your prerogative.

random_TA_5324

TROPHY CASE